Re: Debian package for TreeView X
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 07:12:06PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Because I am considering using it, I have made a debian package for TreeView X.
> Here is its description:
>
> Description: TreeView X displays and prints phylogenetic trees
> TreeView X is an open source program to display phylogenetic trees on Linux,
> Unix, Mac OS X, and Windows platforms. It can read and display NEXUS and
> Newick format tree files (such as those output by PAUP*, ClustalX,
> TREE-PUZZLE, and other programs). It has a subset of the functionality of the
> version of TreeView available for the Mac Classic and Windows (it is roughly
> equivalent to version 0.95 of TreeView).
> .
> The program was written by Rod Page r.page@bio.gla.ac.uk using the wxWidgets
> C++ library. URL: http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/treeviewx/
>
> This program almost does not more than njplot, apart from having a
> gnome interface and allowing to export to the SVG format. Shall I
> write an ITP, or shall I put it on my website and write an ITP only
> if some persons find it useful ?
Just file an ITP.
> For the moment, I have put everything on
> http://charles.plessy.org/debian It is a powerpc package, and I have
> not yet figured out how to provide it as a source so that people can
> compile it.
You want to have a ../packagename_version.orig.tar.gz, and then you
run dpkg-buildpackage to build the binary packages
../packagename_version-debianrevision_arch.deb or, if you just want to
build the source package, cd ../; dpkg-source -b packagename-version/;
You do not want to be creating native packages or tarballs of packages
which include the debian directory; it should be entirely within the
.diff.gz.
> I have a philosophical problem with this package. The name of the
> binary is 'tv', which is not very meaningful. Would it be unethical
> if I renamed TreeViewX, for instance ?
There aren't presently any binaries named 'tv' in the archive, so that
isn't a problem in itself (though xmltv-util might want the
namespace). If the manpage says what it is, then it should be okay to
leave it as is. If you rename the package, be sure all the
documentation and everything is also consistent.
Justin
Reply to: